Coordinated by Kurt Wikel Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap from

FOCUS ARTICLE
Geophysics to Engineering in
Unconventional Reservoirs
Kurt Wikel
Petrobank Energy and Resources, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Introduction per unit area, and if we visualize a point within the earth as a
cube it can be visualized as in Figure 1. This consists of three
Oilfield Geomechanics has a broad range of definitions, and normal stresses and six shear stresses. A simple rotation can be
depending on who you ask you may get a different answer. applied to this tensor which results in the shear stresses going
To this author, in its simplest form, it encompasses the study to zero leaving only the principal stresses shown in Figure 2.
of how stresses and strains within the earth affect what we This assumes that the overburden is vertical and horizontal
drill into and explore for. The magnitude and direction of stresses are normal to the vertical stress (Anderson, 1951). This
stresses and how they affect the rock properties in a region, a assumption holds true in most areas, except near large
field, and a wellbore has a massive impact and control on geologic structures such as faults, salt domes, and igneous
what we do in unconventional resource exploration and intrusions where more complicated stress models are needed
exploitation. Unconventional in this case refers to tight sands to describe the stresses within the earth.
and shales containing oil or gas that require stimulation to
produce at economic rates. This paper will describe how When we look at the simplified result of this diagram (rotated
geomechanics influences wellbore stability, reservoir proper- so no shear stresses exist), we see that we are left with the
ties, and hydraulic stimulations. Through this description of weight of the overlying rock (the overburden) and two hori-
geomechanics I hope to convince geophysicists that there is zontal stresses as shown in Figure 2. Now that we have
not so large a gap between the engineers we deal with and defined stresses, we can get into the explanation of effective
the seismic data we look at every day. stresses. Within the earth, a formation’s strength and the
fluids it contains dictates how stresses act and distribute
Geomechanics basics: within that formation. As a result, the pore pressure and rock
properties of each formation need to be calculated or esti-
Applied geomechanics deals with the measurement and esti- mated to gain the full understanding of how stress acts
mation of stresses within the earth, and how those stresses within the earth. The pore pressure within a formation can
apply to oilfield operations. Throughout this paper we will be help support the load that it maintains, and this needs to be
discussing stresses within the earth, and for convenience we taken into account when we estimate stresses. Terzaghi first
will use the principal stress notation where the overburden or described this relationship in 1943 with Equation 1 below:
vertical stress is denoted σv, the maximum horizontal stress as
σH, and the minimum horizontal stress as σh. Stress is a force σ’ = σ-Pp
Equation 1: Terzhagis equation where σ’ = Effective stress,
σ = total stress, and Pp = pore pressure.

Within the oil and gas industry, rock properties are usually
described in terms of Poisson’s ratio, Young’s modulus, bulk
modulus, and shear modulus. These moduli are calculated
from the P and S wave logs in wellbores and interestingly the

Figure 1. Figure showing 3-dimensional stress state at a point within the earth,
with normal and shear stress components in tensor notation. Stress is a second
order tensor (Jaeger and Cook, 2007). Figure 2. Generalized cube showing simplified geomechanical modeling inputs.

Continued on Page 37

36 CSEG RECORDER May 2011

 Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 36

Figure 5. Schematic showing the Anderson fault classification

system. The relative magnitudes of the stresses with depth
dictate the type of faulting in a given region. Based on
Figure 3. Schematic of wellbore breakout and its relation to horizontal stresses. This type of failure is Anderson, 1951.
dependent on rock strength, pore pressure, and stresses; as well as mud weight used while drilling.
Breakout is also time dependent, as shown by pieces of the wellbore wall that have not yet completely
references of interest: Zoback et. al., 1985; Moos
broken off. These pieces can come off through time as the well is drilled and the pipe is tripped in and out.
From the World Stress Map, Heidbach et al; 2008. and Zoback, 1990; Sayers, 2010; Jaeger and Cook,
2007; Barton et al; 2009. It will be shown in the
next few sections that the estimation of the direction and magni-
tude of these stresses along with the associated geologic rock
properties provided by seismic can be extremely useful.

Stress directions and magnitudes; impact on the wellbore and

completions:

Before we put a hole in the earth, it is in a state of stress equilib-

rium. The borehole that we are drilling disrupts that equilibrium
and causes stress to redistribute around the borehole. We have
mud weight to balance this dis-equilibrium, but commonly this is
not enough to stop breakout or wellbore instability completely. By
looking at the damage we cause in the borehole while drilling (via
drilling, tripping in or out, surging and swabbing, etc.) we can
estimate the stress directions in the formations we drill through
and start to constrain the magnitudes of stresses with other
drilling and completion data from the area (Figure 3). If we look at
an image log as shown in Figure 4, we can see that breakout has a
distinct appearance (caliper logs can be used for this purpose as
well). Breakouts occur in the direction of minimum horizontal
stress, as the maximum compression (where breakout occurs) in
the wellbore happens 90 degrees from the maximum horizontal
stress (in most cases). Because of this relationship we can estimate
the σH direction.
Figure 4. Example of wellbore breakout on an image log (resistivity based pad tool).
From Barton et al; 2009. Once the directions of stress are known, it is possible to make
estimates of stress magnitudes. The overburden is usually quite
dynamic moduli can also be estimated from seismic data (more easy to estimate, as we almost always have density logs in the
on that link later). In addition to this, for wellbore stability area. Simply integrating the density of the overlying rock (and
purposes, we try to measure from core or estimate using empir- water if we are in an offshore setting) and multiplying by the
ical relations the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). Full acceleration due to gravity will give the overburden stress. The
explanations of all of these moduli aren’t necessary in this paper, minimum horizontal stress can be estimated using leak off tests,
but those interested can find complete details in Mavko et al; offset completion data, or mini fracture tests within the wellbore.
1999 and Jaeger and Cook, 2007. The maximum horizontal stress is always one of the largest
unknowns in the world of geomechanics as there is no direct way
It is not my intent to show how we can estimate all of these prop-
to measure it. This can be constrained either by using advanced
erties with well log and seismic data, but rather the impact that
sonic measurements (Sayers, 2010) or by using the severity of
the results of this modeling, combined with or derived from
wellbore breakouts (Moos and Zoback, 1990; Barton et al; 2009).
seismic data, can have in the unconventional. Anyone interested
The magnitudes of the horizontal stresses are of the utmost
in the construction of a geomechanical model will find these
importance as the magnitudes with depth define the type of

Continued on Page 38

May 2011 CSEG RECORDER 37

Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 37
faulting regime that the formation of interest lies in. Figure 5 wells completed in unconventional resource development are
shows the Anderson fault classification based on relative magni- drilled in the direction of minimum horizontal stress. This is done
tudes of principal stresses, while Figure 6 shows data from the to contact and prop open the largest amount of reservoir by
publically available World Stress Map (Heidbach et al; 2008). making fractures perpendicular to the horizontal well as shown
in the left of Figure 7. This also highlights how the maximum
All of the information contained in this map is extremely useful horizontal stress direction controls the direction of stimulation
for unconventional oil and gas exploration. Almost all horizontal propagation in high horizontal stress ratio environments (strike-
slip or thrust fault regime). In the left of Figure 7, which is in
western Canada, the regional maximum horizontal stress direc-
tion is 45° east of north. This is also the direction in which the
stimulation has grown according to the microseismic. The magni-
tudes of these stresses and their local variations are often over-
looked, but are just as important. Take, for example, the Fort
Worth Basin; which is the birthplace of North American shale gas.
This basin has been used as an analogue for almost every new
shale play in the past 10 years due to the large amount of publicly
available data. However, the stress state in the Fort Worth Basin is
one that is, for the most part, in a normal faulting regime (there
are some exceptions to this); and the magnitudes of the horizontal
stresses are nearly equal. Where the horizontal stress ratio is high,
as in the Montney, induced fractures grow in a very linear fashion
from the perforations out into the formation (left side of Figure 7
and Figure 8). In contrast, where the horizontal stress ratio is low,
as in the Barnett, induced fractures are able to grow in a much
more complex pattern using more of the pre-existing natural frac-
ture network (right side of Figure 7 and Figure 9).
Figure 6. This modified portion of the World Stress Map shows the direction of
maximum horizontal stress, denoted by the azimuth of the line, and the faulting Looking at Figure 6 we can see that most other areas of emerging
regime as measured by earthquake focal mechanisms, overcoring, breakouts, and abundant shale gas in North America are NOT in a normal
drilling induced fractures, geologic indicators, etc. The color shows the faulting
regime the same as denoted in Figure 5; black is unknown regime. Modified from
faulting regime. Indeed, the basins that contain the Marcellus,
Heidbach et al; 2008. Horn River, Bakken, Cardium, Monterey, and the Montney are

Figure 7. Microseismic from NW Alberta (nitrogen enhanced slickwater) on the left with fairly linear fractures versus the much more complex network growth seen in the
Barnett (slickwater) example to the right. Microseismic is from Atkinson, 2010 and King et al; 2008.

Continued on Page 40

38 CSEG RECORDER May 2011

Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 38

Figure 8. This figure shows a high horizontal stress ratio as in the Appalachian Figure 9. This figure shows a low horizontal stress ratio as in a majority of the Fort
Basin and Rocky Mountain foreland. The red line is a propagating hydraulic frac- Worth Basin. The red line is a propagating hydraulic fracture from the center well-
ture from the center wellbore. Pre-existing planes of weakness will be tough if not bore. This shows how opening pre existing planes of weakness or new fractures in
impossible to open in the direction perpendicular to maximum horizontal stress, a direction perpendicular to maximum horizontal stress is made possible by lower
where horizontal stress ratios are high. horizontal stress ratios.

Figure 10. This figure shows breakout in a horizontal wellbore in a normal faulting Figure 11. Breakout in a horizontal wellbore in a strike-slip or thrust faulting
regime, where overburden is the maximum stress. The perspective is looking in the regime, where overburden is the intermediate or minimum respectively. This type
direction of minimum horizontal stress. of breakout is extremely hard to remedy and causes much more stuck pipe, stuck
logging tools, and poor cement jobs.

induced complex fracture networks that permit maximum reser-

voir contact. The growth of hydraulic stimulations is affected by
many things outside of the completion design; pre-existing
planes of weakness (fractures and especially faults), rock fabric
and type, rock properties, etc. It is also important to note that
while complex fracture network growth can be seen in highly
compressive environments, it is usually the exception, not the
rule. I will leave this topic with a quote from a paper written by
King et al; 2008:

“Development of both primary and secondary fractures is possible

when the maximum and minimum stresses are relatively similar.
When tectonic stresses are highly dissimilar, switching fracture direc-
tions will be difficult and complex fracture development improbable.”

On top of the control on hydraulic stimulations, ratios of stresses

within the earth control important details of how the wellbore
Figure 12. Diagram showing the definitions of vertical and lateral strain, Young’s
breaks out in both the vertical and horizontal well section. This
modulus and Poisson’s Ratio. From Batzle et al; 2006.
phenomenon is especially important, keeping in mind that these
wells are nothing without a completion, and the cement job can
almost all strike-slip or reverse, commonly with high horizontal
greatly affect a stimulations effectiveness. In most cases people
stress ratios. Figures 7-9 all point to the fact that stress direction
visualize breakout (or compressional failure) occurring (Figures
and magnitude matter in a way not fully appreciated by many.
10 and 11) in a horizontal well on the sides of the well due to the
High horizontal stress anisotropy does not allow the growth of

Continued on Page 41

40 CSEG RECORDER May 2011

 Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 40
weight of the overlying rock. This ovaliza-
tion of the wellbore is problematic but easier
to clean than the alternative. In highly
compressive environments like strike-slip or
thrust fault regimes, this breakout occurs not
at the sides but at the top and bottom of the
wellbore. This occurs wherever at least one
of the horizontal stresses is greater than the
vertical stress, i.e. in NW Alberta, NE British
Columbia, and Appalachia (see Figure 6).
This creates many more operational prob-
lems from stuck pipe, hole cleaning, well
logging, and cement jobs.

When drilling these unconventional wells,

the norm is to drill with as low a mud weight
as possible to increase the rate of penetration
and therefore speed up drilling and reduce
the amount of rig time paid. This approach is
usually not conducive to reducing breakout,
because once it occurs; it tends to be self
sustaining (see Figure 3). As the drill pipe is
pulled out and put into the hole the pressure
changes, this is known as surge and swab. Figure 13. Diagram of a petrophysical model showing the correlation between ν (track under the blue arrow)
When this occurs in a highly compressive and the minimum horizontal stress, σh (blue track under the black arrow). Note the similarity in the two log
profiles. This is an example of a log that is usually used to pick perforation locations and zones for stimulation.
environment, the potential for stuck pipe From Rickman et al; 2008.
increases dramatically as rock falling
from above has a much greater chance
of causing tight spots and stuck pipe.
If we knew that this compressive
environment existed pre-drill, it

Xw
would allow us to come in at a more
works
TM
appropriate mud weight, and there-
fore reduce or avoid altogether the
geoservices inc.
severe breakouts that lead to serious
operational setbacks. comprehensive
comprehensive domestic and international
international geophysical
geophysical workstation
workstation specialists

Rock Properties:
Xw
works
TM

- practices
practices the highest level
level of client
client da
data
ta cconfidentiality
onfidentiality

In addition to regional stress directions

SSeismic Data
eismic D ata Room
Room R Rental
ental Service
Service (two
(two secure
secure pr private
ivate da
datata rrooms)
ooms)
and magnitudes, the properties of the D Divestiture
ivestiture SSeismic
eismic D
Data
ata R
Room
oom Supp
Support ort (f(four
four portable
portable workstations)
workstations)
formation itself are of great impor- SSeismic
eismic P
Project
roject Conversions
Conversions (b(between
etween interpretation
interpretation sofsoftware)
fttware)
tance. This importance is not limited to SSeismic Data Loading
eismic Data Loading SService
ervice
building a complete geomechanical SSynthetic
ynthetic and 2D Model
Model Generation
Generation
model; but also to assess our ability to
break the rock with a hydraulic frac-
Georeference Service
Georeference Service (Coordinate
(Coordinate TTransformation
ransfformation of R Raster
aster Images)
ture, the formation’s strength when we GGeographic
eographic Coordinate
Coordinate Conversion
Conversion Service
Service
drill through it, and how these rock WWell
ell Location
Location Plat
Plat Generation
Generation
properties relate to and control seismic Seismic
Seismic Data
Data Management
Management Service
Service
wave propagation. I will concentrate Professional
Proffessional Montage
Montage Display
Display
primarily on how properties that we
can derive from seismic using currently ccan
an pr
provide
ovide - W
Well
ell SSpots,
pots, FFormation
ormation TTops
ops and
a DDirectional
irectional Sur
Surveys,
veys,
available techniques can be used for WWell
ell LLog
og C
Curves,
urves, G
Grid
rid and Culture
Culture O
Overlays
verlays
stimulation modeling and proppant
selection. To move forward, a proper
definition of the terms we are using is
Xw
works
TM

- has available
available the ffollowing
ollowing licensed
licensed geoph
geophysical
ysical sof
software
tware
needed. This is followed by an intro- SeisWare,
S eisW
War
a e, Kingdom,
Kingdom, W
WinPICS,
inPICS, SeisX,
SeisX, VisualVoxAT,
VisualV
VoxAT, GeoSyn,
GeoS
Syn, SeisInfo
SeisInfo
duction to how the rock properties as
defined are used in drilling and
completions engineering. SSuite
Suit
uuite 50
500
500,
000, 816
8 6 - 7th
7th A
Av
Avenue
venue
nue SW
SW CCalg
Calgary,
al ry, ABB T2P
algar T2P 11A1
1A
A 403
03 777-0008
777
77 0000
77 0088 w
www.xworksgeo.com
ww.xxworksgeo
k geoo.com
ks
ksge m

Continued on Page 42

May 2011 CSEG RECORDER 41

Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 41
If we apply an increasing vertical load to a core plug, and leave For an isotropic and homogenous medium, we apply a vertical
the sides unconfined, the load will deform until it fails at the deformation (ΔL) associated with the vertical stress. Normalizing
uniaxial or ‘unconfined’ compressive strength. This parameter is this deformation by the original length of the sample, L, gives the
known as the UCS and is sometimes denoted as the rock’s vertical strain ezz. By definition, Young’s modulus, E, is the ratio of
“strength” by drilling and bit companies. This failure cannot be applied stress (σzz) to this strain. Young’s modulus is therefore in
recovered (we broke the rock) and is therefore inelastic. The units of stress (MPa, psi, etc.). This same stress will generally result
remainder of the terms that we are dealing with will be in the in a lateral or horizontal deformation, ΔW. The lateral strain is then
realm of the elastic, i.e. the loads that we apply are theoretically defined like the vertical strain and is denoted eyy. The relationship
recoverable and do not go into the realm of plastic (or unrecov- of these strains (vertical to horizontal) is known as Poisson’s ratio.
erable) deformation. More background on this can be found in The negative sign is attached because the signs of the deforma-
Jaeger and Cook, 2007. The definitions below, summarized in tions are opposite (vertical negative, horizontal positive).
Figure 12, are from Batzle et al; 2006.
In the oilfield, these rock properties can be derived from the P
and S waves of modern sonic tools. Properties derived from logs
(and seismic) are known as dynamic moduli, meaning that they
are measured with sonic waves and need to be calibrated to labo-
ratory measurements (static). There is much debate about the
validity and the problems of up-scaling when moving from core
scale, to logs, and then to seismic. This is because we tend to
sample cores that are competent and un-fractured; and also
because of the dispersion that occurs due to the different lengths
of measurements used to measure these dissimilar scales. We
know that in almost all cases fractures play a part at some scale
and that dispersion due to measurement length always affects
our accuracy. These issues aside, in the oilfield Young’s modulus
(E) and Poisson’s ratio (ν) have become ubiquitous in both
geomechanics and in engineering. Because of this they should
also become common place in the geoscience world.

In hydraulic stimulation modeling, E is used as a proxy for how

wide a crack can be opened in a formation, and is therefore used
Figure 14. The concept of using E and ν for brittleness, where a high E and low ν
indicate the more brittle areas/formations and a low E and high ν indicate the more to pick perforation locations in both vertical wells, and when
ductile. Ductile formations are thought to be better fracture stimulation barriers available, horizontal wells. A lower E means that a wider crack
and reservoir seals. This concept is from Rickman et al; 2008. can be opened and therefore flow
increased during the stimulation
and more or sometimes larger prop-
pant used. Since we make almost all
of the permeability we will ever
have in tight sand or shale oil and
gas, this is an important parameter.
At depths where the overburden is
not the least stress, the minimum
horizontal stress can be calculated
using the uniaxial strain equation
(Equation 2). This equation assumes
that the reservoir is linear, homoge-
nous, and that there is no tectonic
strain caused by the tectonic
component of stress (Hubbert and
Willis, 1956 and Teufel, 1996). In
most situations, tectonic stress and
the resulting strains will be appre-
ciable. Most stimulation simulators
use modifications of this equation
to account for tectonic effects, but
these are in most cases poorly
constrained and often just calibra-
tions to existing stress data (mini-
Figure 15. Color background shows dynamic Young’s Modulus, with its scale in MPa at the bottom of the Figure, on
this 3D seismic volume (blue = low, pink = high). “Plates” (indicated by the arrow) show the Differential Horizontal
fracture tests, leak off tests,
Stress Ratio (DHSR). The size of the plate is proportional to the magnitude of the DHSR and the direction of the plate etc.)(Blanton and Olsen, 1999).
shows the direction of the local maximum horizontal stress. The long axis of the survey is E-W and survey area is 10
km2. From Gray et al; 2010.

Continued on Page 43

42 CSEG RECORDER May 2011

 Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 42
Seismic rock properties and stress estimation:

The use of rock property estimation coupled with an estimate of

the natural fracture density, either from AVO methods or seismic
attributes, has become the method of choice for geophysicists
Equation 2: Uniaxial elastic strain model where σh = minimum searching for ‘sweet spots’ in shale basins (Goodway et al; 2006
horizontal stress, σv = overburden, ν = Poisson’s ratio, α = Biots and Changan et al; 2009). It has only been recognized recently,
constant, and Pp = pore pressure. however, that we can use conventional P-wave (making certain
In addition to the importance of E and ν for stimulation assumptions) and multi-component seismic (Cary et al; 2010) to
modeling, petrophysicists have recently begun using these two gain estimates of the horizontal stress directions or their ratios in
well log derived rock properties as a proxy for rock ‘brittleness’ the subsurface. In essence, if we have dynamic estimates of the E,
or ‘ductility’ (Rickman et al; 2008). A rock’s brittleness or ν, horizontal stress ratios, and accurate formation velocities, we
ductility is influenced by many parameters outside of E and ν: have an initial estimate of the geomechanical model before the
the grain size and distribution within the rock, mineralogical first horizontal wells are drilled.
content, and especially the fracturing of the formation all influ- Gray et al; 2010 outlined just how this can be done using conven-
ence how easily a rock will break during stimulation. It is no tional P-wave seismic and AVO lamda/mu/rho (LMR) analysis
secret though that our ability and time to measure these things coupled with assumptions to ascertain horizontal stress ratios.
are always limited, especially in the unconventional where turn- The method outlined by Gray allows for the estimation of differ-
around from logging to completion varies from days to weeks. ential horizontal stress ratios (Figure 15) and dynamic rock prop-
This usually doesn’t allow for in-depth lab testing to be erties from 3D P-wave seismic within one 3D seismic volume.
performed. We are left then using E and ν for local and regional Given what we know about unconventional geomechanics
estimations of a formation’s brittleness, hopefully calibrated in discussed above, this information away from the wellbore allows
some way to regional core measurements. This allows us to have for much more advanced analysis pre-drill.
an idea of the formation’s mechanical properties prior to perfo-
rating and stimulating. This concept, from Rickman et al; 2008, is In addition to this Cary et. al. have recently shown that the differ-
shown in Figure 14. ence in converted wave fast and slow velocities in the near
surface can be indicative of differences in horizontal stresses as
they deviate from the regional stress (Figure 16). Shear wave
splitting is usually attributed to
vertical cracks or fractures in the
subsurface at depth. However, this
splitting is observed in compliant
rocks in the near surface where
fracturing is known to be extremely
minimal from regional core obser-
vations. Most of the fast shear (S1)
direction is in the regional direction
of maximum horizontal stress as
derived from the World Stress Map
(Heidbach et al; 2008).

We now have the ability to ascer-

tain fracturing or stress state in a
reservoir pre-drill, this is in addi-
tion to our ability to derive rock
properties from conventional AVO
or AVAz. Given what has been
outlined in this paper, it is evident
that P-wave and multi-component
seismic can provide insights into
geomechanics and engineering
problems that are abundant in
unconventional resource explo-
ration. A 3D seismic survey (either
P-wave or multi-component) can
give initial estimates of fracturing
or stress state, this can be further
constrained when combined with
Figure 16. Figure a shows the results of shear-wave splitting analysis of the azimuthal variations of the PS reflections local well data if it is available. In
on the horizontal components. The direction of the needles indicates the orientation of S1 (fast shear) which is inter- addition to this, estimates of the
preted as the direction of the maximum horizontal stress. Figure b shows the velocity variation with azimuth of shallow dynamic Young’s modulus,
PP reflectors. From Cary et al; 2010.

Continued on Page 44

May 2011 CSEG RECORDER 43

Focus Article Cont’d
Geomechanics: Bridging the Gap…
Continued from Page 43
Poisson’s ratio, and density are possible if the data has adequate Cary, P., Li, X., Popov, G., and Zhang, C. (2010) “Shear-wave splitting in compliant
rocks”. SEG The Leading Edge. October 2010. P 1278-1285.
offset and azimuth coverage. When we combine this with
Changan, D. et. al. (2009) “A workflow for integrated Barnett shale gas reservoir modeling
regional well data of drilling events, logs, and completions we and simulation”. SPE 122934.
are well on our way to a geomechanical model before the first
Goodway, W., Varsek, J., and Abaco, C. (2006) “Practical applications of P-wave AVO
horizontal wells are drilled. for unconventional gas resource plays-1 and 2”. CSEG RECORDER. 2006 Special
Edition. P 90-95.
Gray, D., Anderson, P., Logel, J., Delbecq, F., and Schmidt, D. (2010) “Estimating in-
Conclusions situ, anisotropic, principal stresses from 3D seismic”. 72nd Mtg.: Eur. Assn. Geosci. Eng.
Extended Abstracts.
Geomechanics is not just an important parameter in analyzing an
Heidbach, O., Tingay, M., Barth, A., Reinecker, J., Kurfeß, D., and Müller, B. (2008):
unconventional reservoir; it is perhaps the most important control The 2008 release of the World Stress Map (available online at www.world-stress-
on how our tight/shale reservoirs are developed. It dictates how map.org).
our wellbores breakout and fail, the direction and areal extent of Hubbert, M.K., and Willis, D.G., (1956) “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing”.
our hydraulic stimulations, the size and strength of proppant, how Petroleum Branch Fall Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. October 14-17, 1956.
much that proppant could embed over time with pore pressure Jaeger,J . C., and N. G. W. Cook, “Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics”, 4th ed., 475 pp,
Blackwell, Oxford, 2007.
depletion, and a reservoirs mechanical characterization. Engineers
King, G.E., Haile, L., Shuss, J., Dobkins, T.A. (2008) “Increasing fracture path
use these parameters in their calculations and modeling, but ulti- complexity and controlling downward fracture growth in the Barnett shale”. SPE 119896.
mately the quantification of regional stresses and rock properties Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J. ”The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic
comes from geoscience data. Unconventional resource plays Analysis in Porous Media”. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
demand integration across teams and geomechanics bridges the Moos, D. and Zoback, M.D. (1990) “Utilization of observations of wellbore failure to
gap from geology and geophysics to engineering in a way that is constrain the orientation and magnitude of crustal stresses: Application to continental, deep
sea drilling project, and ocean drilling program boreholes”. Journal of Geophysical
only now becoming more widely appreciated. Seismic surveys Research, vol. 95, no. B6, 9305-9325, June 10.
contain a large amount of data that can be utilized for geome- Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., and Kundert, D. (2008) ”A Practical
chanical and engineering purposes before the first pads are ever Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not
drilled. All we have to do is use them. R Clones of the Barnett Shale”. SPE 115258.
Sayers, C. (2010) ”Geophysics under stress: geomechanical applications of seismic and
borehole acoustic waves”. EAGE/SEG 2010 Distinguished Instructor Short Course.
Acknowledgements DISC series no. 13.
Terzaghi, K. “Theoretical Soil Mechanics”. John Wiley and Sons, 1943.
This work would not have been possible without the help of Tom
Teufel, L.W., (1996) “Influence of Pore Pressure and Production-Induced Changes in Pore
Bratton, Tom Davis, and Shannon Higgins who initially started Pressure on In-Situ Stress”. Albuquerque, New Mexico, Report to Sandia National
me down the path of seismic and geomechanics. In addition, Laboratories.
John Logel, Eric Andersen, Geoff Rait, Dave Gray, Jared Zoback, M.D., Moos, D., and Mastin, L. (1985) “Wellbore breakouts and in-situ stress”,
Atkinson, and Rob Kendall have all provided help and insight Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 90, no. B7, 5523-5530, June 10.
into these issues over the past 2 years.
Kurt Wikel graduated with a B. Sc in
References Geology from the University of Montana.
Anderson, E.M. (1951) The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Applications He received his M.Sc. from the Colorado
to Britain. 2nd ed., Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
School of Mines in Geophysics with a
Atkinson, J. (2010) “Multi-component time-lapse monitoring of two hydraulic fracture
stimulations in an unconventional reservoir, Pouce Coupe field, Canada”. Masters Thesis. minor in Petroleum Engineering in 2008.
Colorado School of Mines, Department of Geophysics; Reservoir Characterization A graduate of the Reservoir
Project. Characterization Project, he worked with
Batzle,M., Han, D-H, Hofmann, R. “Chapter 13: Rock Properties”. The Petroleum Schlumberger DCS Denver on geome-
Engineering Handbook, Volume 1: General Engineering. Lake, L.W. Editor. SPE,
2006. chanics applied to time lapse seismic data. He worked for
Barton, C., Moos, D., Tezuka, K. (2009) “Geomechanical wellbore imaging: Implications Talisman Energy for 2.5 years in exploration geophysics and
for reservoir fracture permeability”. AAPG Bulletin, v.93, no.11, November 1999. P was the International Exploration Geomechanics Specialist
1551-1569. until July 2010. Kurt is currently working on Subsurface
Blanton, T.L. and Olsen, J.E., (1999) “Stress Magnitudes from Logs: Effects of Tectonic Geophysics and Geomechanics for Petrobank Energy and
Strains and Temperature”. SPE 54653.
Resources in Calgary, AB Canada.

Have you moved?

Jim Racette
Do you know someone Managing Director, CSEG
Tel: 403 262 0015
who has moved? Fax: 403 262 7383
Email: [email protected]

Let us know

44 CSEG RECORDER May 2011